In this interview with Msgr. James P. Moroney, as published in the Georgia Bulletin, Msgr. makes it very clear that the new translation is not merely a neutral 2.0, not merely a revision, but is rather a corrected translation. He cites Liturgiam Authenticum 6: the existing texts “stand in need of improvement through correction or through a new draft.” I would say, then, that Fr. Z is perfectly right in calling the forthcoming Missal the “corrected translation.” This phrase is catching on , as well it should.
11 Replies to “Why the New Translation?”
Comments are closed.
When I was taking Latin in High School, I thought it would be helpful to work through the Latin Mass as a reading.translating exercise. (Afterall, I was taking Latin because of my interest in Liturgy, not because I wan't to read Cicero).
I got out a Latin edition of the Novus Ordo.
I already knew about "Et cum spiritu tuo." Okay, I can see why they did that.
The Confetior just confused me, and by the time I got to "hominibus bonae voluntatis" I was flabbergasted.
I kept thinking "What were they thinking?"
they were "progressive" ideologues
I've heard that, but-
How exactly is "Peace to His people on Earth" more progressive than "on Earth, peace to people of good will"?
Seems like the accurate translation is more inclusive/progressive (the criterion for getting peace is being "of good will," rather than belonging to (male pronoun) God).
How is "to receive You" more progressive/liberal/whatever than "that you should come under my roof"?
I've heard the pro-clerical arguments about why "your Spirit" is SO IMPORTANT theologically, but I don't buy that it was translated "also with you" because of some liberal, anti-clerical plot.
The only ideology I can find implicit in the current translation is something like "people don't understand big words, let's use smaller words." There seemed to have been a few attempts at moving Latin idiosyncrasies into equivalent (but not exact) English idioms (which I would have preferred been kept in the new translations, but it's not that big a deal), but that certainly doesn't seem systematic in any way.
Progressive ideologues? Maybe. But that doesn't feel right.
I don't know much about the facts and circumstances, but my (unscholarly of course) understanding of the output leads me to conclude:
Sloppy translators in too big of a hurry.
Adam,
The architects of this nonsense left plenty of first-hand accounts indicating that it was Progressive ideology and functional anti-Catholicism that motivated both the butchery of the Missal and the aggressively banal translations.
The goal was to distort and destroy the Catholic Faith. They were proud of their work. They bragged about it in L'Osservatore Romano and in their numerous and tedious memoirs.
Some, like Kung, are still bragging about it.
Well then!
Not only did they not do a very good job of translating, they didn't do a very good job of being progressive ideologues.
Anyone who knows English understands that "mankind" refers to all human beings on earth (male and female). Everyone understands this, and has always understood this.
I didn't know we were talking about gender specificity in reference to the species homo sapiens within the ICEL translations (current or pending).
But-
Words don't have inherent meaning, they have meaning as assigned to them by the culture that uses them. One could argue that one English word or another (man vs. human vs. person, for example) is a better way to translate some Latin word (homo, in this case). The argument could be made on either side based on all sorts of criterion: literary, theological, sociological, political.
But (BUT!) that has very little to do with translating ALL THE OTHER WORDS in the phrase "et in terra pax, hominibus bonae voluntatis." People of good will, men of good will, persons of good will, human beings of good will.
How do you get to "His people?"
JT wrote me an email suggesting that the way you get to "his people" is by caring more about rhythm than accuracy, which explains why the old Gloria works better in 6/8 than the new ones.
Adam,
In his What Does The Prayer Really Say columns over the past decades, Fr. Zuhlsdorf has given hundreds of examples of paraphrases that could only be the result of ideological intent, rather than by mere incompetence or desire to simplify.
Such as the deletion of the concept of "spirit" or "soul" in many more prayers than the single familiar response you mention, deletion of the concept of "grace" in countless prayers, similar deletions of references to "sin", insertion of the English word "love" in many prayers where none of the several Latin words for various types of charity or love appears, etc., etc., etc.
Ah, yes…
And I should have said at some point- my flummoxation with the translator's intent (on grounds of WTFness) extends primarily to the Ordinary.
Fr. Z's commentary on the Propers is what actually convinced me of the need for a wholesale retranslation. (Not that it matters whether I am convinced or not…)
I'm not trying to argue about the intent of the current translations. I don't know enough about it to do anything except believe you all who say it was "progressive ideology," which seems completely reasonable, given the time.
All I'm saying is:
I still don't get it. The translations (including the Collects and proper prayers and such) don't seem to be that great in terms of their progressiveness- they just seem kinda bland and sloppy compared to the Latin. They seem like explanatory glosses (like the opposite-page "translations" in Jr-High editions of Shakespeare). They seem poorly conceived. They don't seem like any great victory for liberality or progressivism.
If you tell me there was an agenda, I believe you. I just don't think that it was an agenda that was carried out particularly successfully.
Not an expert, limited Latin, slept through comparative religion classes, BUT….
ISTM that a large part of it was simplification, ideologically motivated.
1) accessibility, lessening the need for the mediation or explanation from the more learned, i.e. the more authoritative, i.e. those who speak for the Church, (a kind of anti-clericalism.)
2) leaving out words, phrases and concepts that were a source of division between Catholics and protestants. A kind of charitable, not "protestantization" as is often charged, but more unCatholicization.
And yeah, actual idealogues did a bad job of it — would have gotten further with subtler methods.
Awkward pronounless sentences did nothing to advance, say, the cause of equality.
Adam,
I don't buy that it was translated "also with you" because of some liberal, anti-clerical plot.
I agree. The explanation I've always heard is anecdotal, but it makes sense to me. I heard the original English proposal was:
"The spirit of the Lord be with you."
"And also with you."
They decided not to go with "the spirit" part, and neglected to put it back into the response. I'd call it sloppy, but not malicious.